[HN Gopher] Looking Glass starts shipping its 8K holographic dis...
___________________________________________________________________
Looking Glass starts shipping its 8K holographic display
Author : prostoalex
Score : 176 points
Date : 2020-05-26 16:05 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (techcrunch.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (techcrunch.com)
| ebg13 wrote:
| The thing that strikes me the most is how absolutely terrible
| they are at showing off their product. Their whole promo video is
| extreme closeups on 3D renderings that look no different than
| what my cellphone can do because it's just a boring video of
| boring renderings and I'm watching it on my boring cellphone.
| It's like they're trying to show the grand canyon by filling the
| frame with a small bit of rock.
|
| This shitty gif from techcrunch is infinitely more impactful in
| every conceivable way despite being a shit quality gif.
| https://techcrunch.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Aug-22-201...
|
| Looking Glass people, if you're reading this, you need to zoom
| way the fuck out, turn the lights on, and quit with the artsy
| bullshit fading to black every few seconds because it looks like
| you're hiding something. You cannot show pictures. You need to
| show the experience.
| macromaniac wrote:
| Specifically they need to pan the camera around since you cant
| show off the stereoscopic effect on a regular screen. Heres my
| favorite demo: https://youtu.be/E8pZlI2WM_Q
| Grimm1 wrote:
| Thank you, I thought I was missing something when looking at it
| but I was like looks the same to me.
| fxtentacle wrote:
| I believe they are shy to show it in high-quality video because
| the effective resolution is <900px. See my comment below for
| the math.
|
| Even in that TechCrunch gif, I believe I can already see pixel
| borders on the specular shading of the top part of the h.
|
| For an even clearer example, see the frog in full-screen at
| 3:31 here: https://youtu.be/-EA2FQXs4dw?t=211
| robocat wrote:
| (Edited) The frog was on the low-res developer device.
|
| The much larger "8k" version introduced half way through
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EA2FQXs4dw has some good
| tech detail, with the raw pixel mapping shown at 6:30. Calcs
| seem about right since raw pixel count was stated as 43
| million, although it was implied elsewhere they split RGB sub
| pixels too (which sounds wrong I admit), so maybe 43 million
| divided by 15? Our eyes are more sensitive to luminance than
| colour, so maybe they did something there (however, not that
| I could see from the raw pixel mapping at 6:30).
| ebg13 wrote:
| I don't think the video quality or display quality is the
| problem though. The 8k screen itself looks plenty high
| quality in the Linus video bouncing around this thread. The
| problem is that their promo material entirely eliminates any
| sense of the _one_ thing that they bring to the table that
| makes them special.
|
| They need to throw up a _static_ 3D image that the viewer can
| easily understand and then move the camera. That's it. That's
| all they had to do, because literally the one thing that
| makes this screen special is showing different viewing
| angles, and they failed wildly.
| wlesieutre wrote:
| What really kills me is that they clearly shot the screen on a
| turntable (0:30) which would be the perfect time to show the
| on-screen image rotating, but no. Black screen.
|
| Too hard to connect the cables for that shot? Didn't bring a
| computer to the photo studio?
|
| Another option: short animated loop to create depth from
| parallax. But the key thing is it needs to show the monitor as
| a whole along with the image on screen, all moving together.
| https://imgur.com/eh5u6Gu
| xbmcuser wrote:
| I think this linus tech tips video shows it better
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EA2FQXs4dw
| dugditches wrote:
| Interesting to see the 'modified' image before it's put on
| the display(https://youtu.be/-EA2FQXs4dw?t=375)
|
| Seems similar to how pixel art worked, and tricks artists
| used to get a better image with CRTs. https://66.media.tumblr
| .com/8d2cf7adae94fde97d1a8c9cf78a46a2...
| HellDunkel wrote:
| So true, but i kind of like the unterstatement of it.
| 2bitencryption wrote:
| Remember the reveal of the Nintendo 3DS?
|
| They _did not_ allow press to take images of the device when
| the display was on.
|
| They knew images couldn't capture the 3D so they did what this
| company is doing and used a bunch of vague renderings to try to
| express how the thing worked.
|
| Since it's probably the same underlying parallax tech powering
| both, I'd guess the reasonings are the same.
| ebg13 wrote:
| That's a bad reason, and they executed poorly. The techcrunch
| gif I linked _kills_ the demo (in the good way) in a second.
| Random schmoe cellphone took their marketing department to
| school without an ounce of preparation.
| comex wrote:
| Yeah. The 3DS only supports one viewing angle, holding it
| straight parallel to your face. At that angle, you see 3D;
| at any other angle, you see distortions. So indeed, _the
| 3DS_ very hard to demonstrate in a photo or video. But
| Looking Glass supports multiple angles, which makes the gif
| you mentioned possible and is also what makes it unique as
| a product!
| nimazeighami wrote:
| > Since it's probably the same underlying parallax tech
| powering both, I'd guess the reasonings are the same.
|
| It's not. Looking Glass is an advanced version of lenticular
| optics, which is 100+ year old technology, except used to
| create a multiscopic display(many views).
|
| Nintendo 3DS is newer technology, known as parallax barrier.
| However, 3DS is only two views, which is pretty much only
| useful for a single viewer.
| virtue3 wrote:
| It's not really the same tech. More like a super sandwitch of
| 43 perspective layers. the 3DS uses parallax effect, which
| requires your head to be in a set location for it to work (I
| believe?) versus this monitor that actually works via you
| looking around at it from different perspectives (43 is the
| number I kept hearing)
| gelstudios wrote:
| Yes 3DS has a few fixed / discrete viewing positions from
| which the stereoscopic effect will "work".
|
| The later "New 3DS" introduced a face tracker that made the
| effect work continuously across most of the LCD's viewing
| angle for a single viewer.
|
| Curious why they didnt go for a similar setup here? Though
| the looking glass display allows for multiple viewers.
| fxtentacle wrote:
| FYI, the 8K is their Input Resolution.
|
| That resolution is then divided into the 45 viewing directions:
| https://docs.lookingglassfactory.com/Appendix/how-it-works/
|
| We need to divide 7680x4320 by the 9x5 grid.
|
| Thus, the effective resolution is only 864x853 scaled in width to
| make each pixel about 1.75x wider than tall.
|
| At that resolution, it might be difficult to read normal-sized
| text.
| Retric wrote:
| Yea, it's really not designed for 3D movies or replacement of a
| normal monitor. It's great for viewing or editing individual
| models that seem to fit inside the display which while a niche
| is a fairly wide one.
|
| Also, "only 864x853 ... it might be difficult to read normal-
| sized text." That makes me feel really old, I spent a long time
| coding on 640x480 in 16 colors
| bane wrote:
| I saw an earlier prototype at a Demosplash at CMU. It was
| _really_ incredibly cool in certain instances. 3D objects really
| looked like they were "in" the volume of the display and moving
| my body or head from side-to-side was pretty flawless.
|
| That being said, it also had limitations. 3D effects that
| extended beyond the display (like a tunnel, or some larger
| effect) lost that depth to me, and there's no up-down 3D, only
| side-to-side. The one I saw was also not as high-resolution as
| you might think, the effective resolution was the
| resolution/elements where each element was a particular angle the
| display was to be viewed from and the computer had to render the
| display from each angle simultaneously. The prototype I saw had
| the effect of looking a bit like 3d objects underwater.
|
| Still, it was the closest thing I've seen to a volumetric display
| outside of a lab, and in the cases where it _really_ worked
| (things inside the volume of the display) it was kind of jaw
| dropping.
|
| _edit_ here 's the pouet page for the demo I saw
| https://www.pouet.net/prod.php?which=78756
|
| This video is from a handheld camera that moves around the
| display that's helpful to understand how it works
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=US7hzM0a21E&feature=youtu.be
| etaioinshrdlu wrote:
| So if you rotate your head 90 degrees the effect falls apart?
| numpad0 wrote:
| Looking Glass is just lenticular sheet glued to LCD, same
| technology as cheap 3D postcards and stickers from the '90s
| made of vertical grated plastic that you tilt left and right
| and picture changes. Probably not even 3D. Acrylic block part
| is just a gimmick as well.
|
| But reportedly they execute that principle super well,
| gimmick part included, to the point it looks almost VR.
| etaioinshrdlu wrote:
| The interesting thing is that if the lenticular lens is
| done with mini spheres instead of mini-cylinders, it should
| be possible to create a more fully holographic effect,
| given a sufficiently high-res base display. Basically a
| light-field camera in reverse.
|
| (I am sure they have thought of this by now ...)
| nicd wrote:
| Fovi3D (http://www.fovi3d.com/) makes this kind of light-
| field display based on microlenses.
|
| One challenge here is the tradeoff between spatial and
| angular resolution. If you're generating a 4x4 lightfield
| starting with a 2160x1440 display, you only end up with
| 640x360 superpixels.
|
| The company I work for (https://www.leiainc.com/) makes a
| display that can switch between light field and 2D, so
| you can have the best of both worlds.
| VikingCoder wrote:
| Yeah, that's not remotely accurate.
|
| 45 angles for each pixel:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EA2FQXs4dw&t=4m18s
|
| That's far more complicated than a lenticular sheet glued
| to LCD.
| Miraste wrote:
| Undoubtedly it's harder to build, but it is the same
| technology.
| VikingCoder wrote:
| Here's an article which discusses it, and it appears to
| explicitly not be lenticular.
|
| https://www.engineering.com/ARVR/ArticleID/17613/In-
| Through-...
| kaffeemitsahne wrote:
| "There's a lot more to the evolution, enough for a book
| on the subject, but if you had to create a list of what
| kinds of technology and methodology went into the Looking
| Glass (since they do not list it), it might look like
| this:"
|
| Pure speculation.
| kn0where wrote:
| So, it's a much higher end Nintendo 3DS.
| fenwick67 wrote:
| Except there are 45 images instead of 2.
| daniel_reetz wrote:
| Which means 45 pixels under each lenslet.
| nimazeighami wrote:
| No actually. The Nintendo 3DS uses parallax barrier
| technology, which is significantly newer technology than
| 100+ year old lenticular tech which powers Looking Glass
| and most 3D devices. That's why the Nintendo 3DS has such
| good image separation and reduced ghosting compared to
| cheap Chinese 3D phones and Rokit IO Pro 3D.
| robocat wrote:
| That's wrong: technically it is nothing like the vertical
| grated sheet you see on cheap 3D posters etc.
|
| At 6 min 30 in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EA2FQXs4dw
| they show the pixel sub mapping - and it isn't just
| vertical bars.
| bane wrote:
| It's more like panning. If you step left right, the parallax
| effect persists, like walking around an object in a box on
| table. But if you try to go up/down it appears to rotate with
| you as the display doesn't have any fields vertically.
|
| It reminded me a lot of those "3d" pictures you can get that
| have a bunch of vertical sections at slightly different
| angles. They go back to maybe the 70s. There's a funny name
| for them that I can't quite remember.
|
| My understanding is that the "box" that sits on top of the
| display is purely cosmetic and helps sell the effect, and
| that the backboard of the display provides everything.
| objclxt wrote:
| > There's a funny name for them that I can't quite
| remember.
|
| It's lenticular printing -
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenticular_printing
| rowanG077 wrote:
| Lenticular printing?
| fangorn wrote:
| Only one thing to say: shut up and take my money!
| empath75 wrote:
| My guess is we'll see these first used in advertising, a fancier
| lenticular billboard.
| ortusdux wrote:
| I was thinking high end jewelry store window display.
| wlesieutre wrote:
| Could also be neat for museums to virtually show jewelry and
| other small objects. Hard to justify the price for consumer
| use, but for an exhibit with thousands of people passing
| through you'd get more mileage.
|
| The benefits being that you can share the items across many
| museums at once without exposing them to UV or theft risk,
| and without taking the originals away from wherever they
| belong.
| Lichtso wrote:
| I have seen the real holographic photographs [1] being used
| in museums. Actually, they are getting cheaper and there
| are some hologram kits you can buy to make your own at
| home. Obviously not animated, but in principle it should be
| possible to do a holographic movie with a chemical film as
| well.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holography
| jFriedensreich wrote:
| I remember seeing glasses-free 3D displays from sharp many years
| ago and thinking this would be everywhere within 2 years. The
| technology was used in some asian novelty pre-smartphone handsets
| and in one gameboy model but then disappeared. This was not light
| field technology like the Looking glass, so only one angle and
| one viewer could really enjoy it, but i assume the market will
| behave pretty similar this time: After the novelty wore off,
| nearly every single user i talked to preferred 2D displays if it
| had even slightly increased display clarity, brightness and
| resolution. Of course that insight sounds nearly trivial, but
| what really surprised me was the extreme degree of this
| preference: People were not even interested enough to make 3d
| Monitors a second mainstream option next to super retina 2d
| displays or whatever, but the whole market did not even come to
| existence outside very small niches. In a completely different
| context i was extremely surprised how many early "VR" experiences
| did not even mention they were just in 2D with head-tracking and
| no one except me seemed to find that odd or super annoying. It is
| as if no one really cares for 3D.
| peter303 wrote:
| Thats why I will regret not attending an in-person SIGGRAPH in
| person this year. You could see amazing demos of frontier
| technology not yet commercialized.
|
| Ditto watching the NVDIA keynote recently. They were bragging
| about how good their AI-driven 8K raytracing was. But I could not
| see much before and after difference on my puny tablet screen.
| imhoguy wrote:
| That may be quite cool for demos and entertainment. But no way in
| the office - eye strain after 8h day must be severe. I would
| spend same money on 27" e-ink display once such is available.
| craneabove wrote:
| Oh techcrunch, 2 typos in the first sentence.
| goldenkey wrote:
| They really need an editor. It's even worse than the syntax
| errors, saying something `felt more like a proof of concept
| [...] was immediately an impressive concept` is amateur
| wordsmithing. Better wording would be "Immediately, viewers
| were left with a strong impression despite the display being a
| proof of concept.`
|
| > When Looking Glass Factory showed /of/off/s its first
| holographic display way back /on/in/s August 2018, it felt more
| like a proof of concept than anything -- though it was
| immediately an impressive concept
| vsskanth wrote:
| how well does it do with objects at infinity ? Trying to imagine
| if this can be used for sim racing.
| bestfromabove wrote:
| commenting to get my first comment
| ortusdux wrote:
| Ever since I first saw one of these I have been wondering if it
| would be possible to display as-shot light field camera images.
| If it is, they should seriously think about collaborating with
| Lytro.
| lovecg wrote:
| Yes! They have some examples here:
| https://blog.lookingglassfactory.com/announcements/the-memor...
|
| The live stream of the bird cage is a very interesting
| application.
| bsanr wrote:
| *Raytrix/Former Lytro employees who now work for Google
| thorum wrote:
| Holographic displays are one approach being studied for use in
| VR/AR headsets. My understanding is that they may help solve the
| vergence-accommodation conflict, which causes a lot of the motion
| sickness, headaches, eye strain and other issues people have with
| VR:
|
| https://xinreality.com/wiki/Vergence-Accommodation_Conflict
|
| Current headsets use two flat screen displays positioned a fixed
| distance from your head showing two slightly different 2D images.
| This tricks your brain into thinking you're seeing a 3D
| environment with objects closer or further away than the displays
| actually are, but some parts of your visual system are not fooled
| - leading to a conflict where your eyes try to focus and adjust
| to what you're seeing in two different ways at the same time.
|
| Holographs may be able to provide more depth cues to each eye,
| helping to convince the visual system that the images are real.
| WhatIsDukkha wrote:
| You are making a bold and incorrect claim.
|
| """vergence-accommodation conflict, which causes a lot of the
| motion sickness, headaches, eye strain and other issues people
| have with VR"""
|
| This is untrue. It actually a pretty minor amount of the
| issues. There are individuals that suffer from this
| disproportionately but the estimates I've seen were in the low
| single digits.
|
| The major issues are in the source to the link you posted -
|
| http://doc-ok.org/?p=1602
|
| """Accommodation-vergence conflict is the one remaining aspect
| of vision that is not simulated by current VR headsets. While
| it is not as big a deal as simulator sickness induced by poor
| tracking, high latency, or artificial locomotion, """
|
| These are the major sources of vr discomfort which are
| increasingly handled by the baseline vr specification being
| increasingly in the reach of more and more hardware systems.
|
| I'd also note that as the poor tracking and high latency issues
| have disappeared people have found they are comfortable with
| radically wider ranges of artificial locomotion styles.
|
| At this point, in my opinion, the utter uselessness of any text
| based applications (ie what people actually DO all day long) is
| what is holding VR back. The resolution needs to scale up
| fairly radically.
|
| This monitor may have better text results but its not clear
| what the boundaries of it as a 3d display are as I haven't seen
| a review from knowledgeable sources (Oliver Kreylos/ docok is
| one of the people that I'd like to hear from).
| outworlder wrote:
| > artificial locomotion
|
| That's the biggest culprit. Some people even get nausea
| without VR headsets. There was a presentation at the
| California Academy of Sciences where the camera was panning
| as if it was travelling. A few people nearly barfed.
|
| I wonder how much of it is training. Lots of people are ok
| with flight simulators, or simulated cars, train rides, etc.
| It's mostly when they think _they_ are moving that the
| problem presents itself.
|
| > At this point, in my opinion, the utter uselessness of any
| text based applications (ie what people actually DO all day
| long) is what is holding VR back.
|
| In non-gaming scenarios, yes. Resolution could be better.
| However, it is not so bad at all. You need bigger "displays"
| in VR than what you would have in real life, but you can code
| alright.
|
| I would personally prefer lighter, less intrusive devices,
| even if the resolution was the same.
| bsanr wrote:
| These remind me of the holography exhibit at the MIT Museum. If
| you haven't seen it before, I highly recommend it. For those of
| us whose main experience with holographic images are the little
| foil sticker on the backs of credit cards (and, increasingly,
| whose main experience with the world more than 50 miles from our
| homes is through a screen), it is mind-blowing. The detail and
| visceral dimensionality struck me profoundly; they look as if
| someone has cut out a piece of reality and copied it into another
| space, frozen in that instant forevermore.
|
| (I recognize the irony of trying to illustrate this with a
| Youtube video, but nevertheless:
| https://youtu.be/LkpBYne7SlU?t=54 ; I wish that the one with a
| man at his desk was viewable.)
|
| This looks to have the same effect, in full color, and animate-
| able. Light field technology is truly amazing.
| Udik wrote:
| Cool, I have that 1984 issue of National Geographic with the
| hologram on the cover! (At 0:53 in the video). I was fascinated
| by it as a kid.
| MivLives wrote:
| I don't believe that exhibit is still in the museum. It wasn't
| there when I was there in the fall.
|
| Still a fantastic museum to checkout.
| Vanit wrote:
| We got one of these in the office (much smaller) that we only
| bring out for conventions. It's a nice conversation piece but
| serves no practical purpose.
| zelon88 wrote:
| Is there anything on the market that will work with this out of
| the box?
| jacquesm wrote:
| Depending on the sticker price this could be a game changer.
| pvsukale3 wrote:
| I guess this were Hollywood like holographic screen less display
| start coming into reality.
| itronitron wrote:
| https://lookingglassfactory.com/product/8k
| agys wrote:
| The people at Marpi Studio did some interesting interactive demos
| for the Looking Glass display:
|
| https://www.marpi.studio/artwork/ocean/algae-lux
|
| https://www.marpi.studio/artwork/ocean/algae-aux
| mncharity wrote:
| When some of those 45 perspectives don't go near any watching
| eyes, do they still need to be rendered? If not, one might use
| head/eye tracking to save computes.
| fermienrico wrote:
| It is difficult to predict how successful a technology will be
| and how widely it will be adopted.
|
| Does anyone use their 3D glasses that used to ship with "3D TVs"
| circa 2013? My Samsung TV came with a pair of active 3D glasses
| that were collecting dust. On the other hand we've had adoption
| of touch screens on handheld devices, it almost swooped the
| entire mobile market between 2007-2012 after iPhone's
| introduction. But the same thing didn't happen with Keyboard +
| Mouse input on a desktop computer. Infact, the market just
| exploded with new mechanical keyboard aficionados sometime around
| 2010, I still remember hanging out on geekhack a decade ago and
| now mechanical keyboards are everywhere.
|
| We've seen in the past and we will see this in the future - a
| whole lotta focus on aesthetics, UI and presentation - i.e., cool
| graphics in video games, touch screens, holographic displays like
| the one in the article, AR/VR tech (magic leap?) without proper
| attention to content will lead to nowhere. Probably just make
| headlines.
|
| Another thing is that people don't take ergonomics into account.
| Pretty much any sci-fi movie has people moving their arms about
| to interact with content. That would never take off in real life.
| Unfortunately, people like Elon Musk are hell bent on horrible
| UI/UX depicted in their favorite sci-fi movies and shoehorning it
| into Space craft (dragon capsule has all touch screen interface
| with literally no buttons, checkout the Everyday Astronaut
| channel's tour). Elon's vision about UI/UX is misguided through
| movies, it is embarrassing. The giant touch screen panel in a
| Tesla is the main reason I would never get one. I think he might
| put this 8k Holographic display as an option, please don't tweet
| him about it.
|
| Sci-fi movies are the cancer of design. It is the victorian
| design equivalent of modern times, pure decoration. You can find
| traces of it in professional equipment, this thing looks like it
| was pulled from a space ship: https://images-na.ssl-images-
| amazon.com/images/I/61cGhQ0begL...
| anoraca wrote:
| I am a big fan of 3D and still use my 3D TV. You can also view
| 3D blu rays in VR. That generation of technology wasn't great
| for a lot of people, or extended use, unfortunately.
| nimazeighami wrote:
| > Does anyone use their 3D glasses that used to ship with "3D
| TVs" circa 2013?
|
| No, but I still do use them on my projector. It seems that 3D
| became pretty popular with the home theater market, who buys
| more expensive technology than average consumers. This is why
| most good projectors these days still support 3D, while almost
| all regular TV's do not.
| wellthisisgreat wrote:
| 3D glasses were really cool actually to experience CGI in. It
| was actually possible to enjoy that content together in the
| living room unlike VR content when you are expected to sit in
| the same space with boxes on your head
| tjohns wrote:
| My Samsung 3D television was awesome for playing PC video games
| on. The big downside was that playing PC games on a large
| television wasn't the most ergonomic experience. (And for
| movies, none of the streaming services offer 3D content.)
|
| I wish smaller 3D computer monitors had caught on. At least VR
| headsets are still going strong and are even more immersive.
| pkroll wrote:
| Actually there's at least one streaming service that does 3D:
| Vudu.
| https://www.vudu.com/content/movies/movieslist?FEATURE=3D
|
| I have no experience with their 3d, only their HD (they call
| it HDX because marketing) which is perfectly fine for a
| streaming service.
| nimazeighami wrote:
| Unfortunately, not every device supports Vudu's 3D!
|
| The important ones, PS3 and PS4, do however.
| anoraca wrote:
| I have used Vudu for 3D streaming and it worked perfectly.
| w-ll wrote:
| Xfininty used to have 3d on demand as well. I have a 3d tv
| from 2012 and love it. It also has an interesting feature
| where it can interpolate 2d => 3d which depending on the
| content works very well, or is a complete mess.
| StillBored wrote:
| They are both cool for short term use, but I've yet to see a
| shutter glass/etc implementation that is synced well enough
| to the screen and blocks 100% of the light to avoid ghosting.
|
| VR googles have their own issues, because the lenses never
| seem to be perfectly in focus, and the resolution isn't high
| enough directly into the glasses.
|
| In both cases you can choose to ignore the problems for a
| while, but at least in my case the eye strain builds up
| enough I doubt I could deal with it for even 4 hours a day on
| a regular basis.
| nimazeighami wrote:
| > They are both cool for short term use, but I've yet to
| see a shutter glass/etc implementation that is synced well
| enough to the screen and blocks 100% of the light to avoid
| ghosting.
|
| I've never seen this on a monitor/display either. But I
| have an Epson projector from 2013/2014 that uses shutter
| glasses and does block 100% of the opposite eyes image.
| Because it's not a screen, it doesn't have to blank the
| image between frames, it just completely stops sending
| light from that frame.
| ctdonath wrote:
| That thing is the natural continuation of 1960's-era
| oscilloscopes. Those steeped in the industry find it familiar.
|
| A bit puzzling that you criticize all from ancient knob
| proliferation to a single large flat screen. Only alternative
| is small screens with deep menus, it's own he11.
| freeone3000 wrote:
| What was wrong with every control having a dedicated button?
| Yetanfou wrote:
| https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2d/Iran_Ai
| r...
|
| Nothing, as long as you have the space to put them
| somewhere sensible.
| adamweld wrote:
| Modern oscilloscopes still are largely driven by buttons and
| knobs.
| toast0 wrote:
| > Does anyone use their 3D glasses that used to ship with "3D
| TVs" circa 2013? My Samsung TV came with a pair of active 3D
| glasses that were collecting dust. On the other hand we've had
| adoption of touch screens on handheld devices, it almost
| swooped the entire mobile market between 2007-2012 after
| iPhone's introduction. But the same thing didn't happen with
| Keyboard + Mouse input on a desktop computer. Infact, the
| market just exploded with new mechanical keyboard aficionados
| sometime around 2010, I still remember hanging out on geekhack
| a decade ago and now mechanical keyboards are everywhere.
|
| Glasses based 3D sucks. People who don't wear glasses don't
| want to wear glasses and find them unconfortable. People who do
| wear glasses don't want to wear two pairs of glasses and find
| it uncomfortable. Active shutter glasses give some people
| headaches from the flickering. If I could get perscription
| lenses with polarization for my TV's passive 3d, I might play
| with it... But I watched like one 3d blu-ray with the glasses
| and that's good enough for me. This display looks interesting
| because the viewer doesn't have to wear anything, but we'll
| see.
|
| Touchscreens on mobile works because it's cheaper to build than
| a number pad, and way cheaper than a keyboard, it's cheaper to
| extend the touch screen so they don't use any real buttons on
| the front of most androids. The flexibility is helpful for text
| input.
|
| A basic keyboard for a computer is $10 at retail because there
| is no size constraint making things expensive. Even a $10
| keyboard has better user feedback than a touchscreen, but a
| computer sized touchscreen is going to cost more than $10.
| Plus, ergonomics. Touchpads could overtake mice, maybe, but
| desktop is being vastly overtaken by mobile, so it barely
| matters.
| jonny_eh wrote:
| > Touchscreens on mobile works because it's cheaper to build
| than a number pad, and way cheaper than a keyboard, it's
| cheaper to extend the touch screen so they don't use any real
| buttons on the front of most androids. The flexibility is
| helpful for text input.
|
| Consumers didn't flock to a more expensive phone (the iPhone
| in 2007) because it was cheaper to make (it wasn't). They did
| so because the touchscreen enabled new forms of interaction
| not yet possible, enabling full-screen games, photo
| viewing/shooting, and web browsing to name a few.
| toast0 wrote:
| It was cheaper to make the iPhone with a touch screen, than
| it would have been to make it with a slide out keyboard.
| While the iPhone has a big market share in the US and a few
| other high income countries, touchscreen phones have taken
| over in almost all markets, even inexpensive phones,
| because they're cheaper to make, if you've already got a
| large enough screen and a fast enough processor in the
| phone for other reasons. You can still make a cost
| constrained phone where buttons is a better choice, but a
| cost constrained android isn't that much more expensive in
| absolute dollars, and provides so much more functionality
| so it only makes sense for the most cost constrained
| buyers, or those who eschew a smartphone for other reasons.
| cptskippy wrote:
| > The giant touch screen panel in a Tesla is the main reason I
| would never get one.
|
| For me, the interesting part about owing a Tesla is the
| realization of just how badly designed traditional cars are.
| Dedicated tactile controls are better in an automotive context
| for fiddling while driving, and the Model 3 implements almost
| everything necessary while driving as physical controls.
|
| The two things that I fiddle with while driving that don't have
| physical controls are the stereo and windshield wipers. The
| stereo has a physical volume and tracking controls, I don't
| think a physical interface for any other part of the stereo
| would be much better than the touch screen. Windshield wipers
| should have a physical interface, in the Model 3's auto mode is
| great 99% of the time but when it isn't it's too hard to
| manually adjust and when you need to adjust wipers is precisely
| the wrong time to be fiddling.
| adamweld wrote:
| I don't know, I think the controls [0] on my car (VW Golf
| 2017, <20k new) are pretty close to perfection.
|
| Physical buttons or dials for everything except for
| infotainment settings, but minimal with no clutter. Steering
| wheel input for cruise control/audio/wipers and the heads up
| display, while the climate controls are dead simple and easy
| to work without looking down. Infotainment has both touch and
| a context sensitive dial. Everything is grouped contextually
| and I never have to look away from the road.
|
| I was especially impressed that a single dial (left, next to
| the lights) dims _every_ light in the entire cabin to the
| same brightness, across many different subsystems. Great
| design shields the driver from the complexity of the system.
|
| [0]: https://i.imgur.com/wiqfh1w.jpg
| fermienrico wrote:
| That's a beautiful UI for a car, I also love BMWs (E90-F30)
| models before the latest 2019 redesign. 2012-2019 BMW 3
| series is a perfection in UI design IMO.
| microtherion wrote:
| Over the last couple of years, I found the combination of
| physical controls for driving-essential functions and voice
| control (e.g. CarPlay; I don't like the manufacturer
| solutions as much) for convenience functions quite effective.
| fermienrico wrote:
| I actually want every single thing as a button, knob, slider
| or a toggle. All 80 of them. I understand that I am in the
| minority, just stating my personal opinion.
| zitterbewegung wrote:
| All of your examples seem to indicate products marketed to the
| consumer where it seems like Looking Glass is targeting the
| enterprise.
|
| Google Glass sort of failed in the consumer sense but
| eventually has some adoption in the Enterprise space.
| fermienrico wrote:
| I work in high volume manufacturing factory. AR has literally
| become the buzzword cliche that keeps popping up over and
| over.
|
| I have serious doubts about AR use in things like assembly
| instructions. Turns out, it is probably ok for training but
| if you do a task 30 times, your brain develops a memory for
| how to do it and you don't need to wear AR glasses. For
| maintenance techs, which is how Google Glass is marketed, it
| is too much of a hassle to put on the glasses, have a
| software team write the application and maintain it and then
| after spending $200k on this boondoggle AR project, what is
| the ROI? I really don't see it as of any value... maybe there
| is a positive ROI for airplane maintenance.
|
| I am really not convinced. It looks like a solution in search
| of a problem. Are there any AR goggles used in manufacturing
| industry on a mass scale?
| fxtentacle wrote:
| A friend of mine is developing
| https://www.firefightervr.de/ and they seem to be doing
| quite well using VR for training.
| fermienrico wrote:
| I can see why this would be useful than reading a 400
| page instructions. This is _simulation_ and it adds value
| during training.
|
| As I said, there are edge cases where AR/VR makes a lot
| of sense. HUDs in fighter jets for example are
| tremendously useful. But my complain is mostly about
| people wanting to jam some new tech in, take on a lot of
| tech debt, spend $$$ in a fortune 500 company only to
| find that there is no real problem to be solved.
|
| Should we spend $120k consulting with a software company
| to develop an iPad based checklist? Not to mention yearly
| maintenance of that codebase. Printed paper + pen works
| just fine in 90% of the cases for 99.99% less cost! You
| have to ask - how many people are going through this "old
| school" paper trail? 100? 1000? 10 million? I've seen AR
| in manufacturing roadmap slides where there are like 13
| workers and they are all with 25+ years of experience and
| the management wants to do their AR boondoggle.
| Frustrating.
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| Glass was never a consumer product. It was only publicly
| released as a dev kit.
| oarabbus_ wrote:
| >Another thing is that people don't take ergonomics into
| account. Pretty much any sci-fi movie has people moving their
| arms about to interact with content. That would never take off
| in real life.
|
| Why do you believe this to be the case? I've been having a
| blast with the (fully wireless) Oculus Quest, especially games
| like Racket NX which involve constant swinging of arms (you're
| playing tennis, basically).
| Robotbeat wrote:
| I think people haven't really updated their opinion of VR
| since the Quest came on the scene. VR will almost certainly
| never be as big as Mobile is now. But the Quest is a
| fantastic experience and lives well past the point where VR
| novelty has worn off. It's the social experience and
| portability that does it. Sports, as you say, in particular
| are good here. I've been playing Echo Arena for a few weeks,
| now, and far from the novelty wearing off, I'm actually
| enjoying it more and more. Maybe it has something to do with
| the sense of presence and--dare I say--intimacy you get
| playing a multiplayer contact team sport when we're all
| supposed to be self-isolating.
|
| The main, enduring dimension VR adds to gaming IMHO is
| physical exertion (and this aspect is only really engaging
| with a standing experience... and then only enjoyable if
| wireless). I feel much better physically after the light
| exercise of half an hour of Quest gaming than I do after half
| an hour playing some PC first person shooter.
| etaioinshrdlu wrote:
| Apparently this is not even an actual hologram, it is a LCD or
| OLED with a linear lenticular lens attached. Big difference!
| TheOtherHobbes wrote:
| Actual no-compromise panel-sized laser-bending holography is
| far beyond current tech. You need micrometer resolutions -
| think 5k dpi as a blurry bare minimum, and more like 50k dpi
| for high quality output - combined with 3D rendering at that
| resolution, passed through a holographic transform which maps a
| 3D scene to a holographic plane.
|
| For animated holograms you have to do this in real time. And
| colour is still a problem - ideally you want at least three
| different planes for RGB, all correlated with sub-micron
| accuracy.
|
| Shortcuts are possible - actually with stereoscopic 3D TVs and
| monitors they've been and gone - but the real thing won't be
| happening any time soon.
|
| 3D-like emulations - like this product - are much more
| plausible in the short term.
| slg wrote:
| I was reading the article trying to guess the price of this
| thing. I was thinking $20k before I got to the last paragraph
| which mentions the price is quote only. I assume that means I was
| very low on my guess, but then I checked the website and they
| have 15 inch dev kits for as low as $3k, so I have no idea.
| Anyone have a rough ballpark for what this would cost?
| Cerium wrote:
| If they could do $20k for the display, I would expect to see
| some usage (as their marketing materials state) in medical
| devices. Displays targeted for medical devices can be
| surprisingly expensive, Glasses 3d monitors, such as those used
| on upcoming surgical robots, are getting purchased around $12k
| from what I hear.
| bane wrote:
| IIR, the prototype was surprisingly reasonably priced. I would
| guess that this display would be less than one might expect.
| arthurcolle wrote:
| What was the prototype priced at?
| colechristensen wrote:
| I wish they wouldn't call it _holographic_ because it seems like
| it has nothing to do with what are traditionally called holograms
| which involve using interference patterns, diffraction, and
| coherent light to record and reproduce light field information
| into and from a 2d medium.
|
| What this appears to be is recording pseudo-light felid with thin
| strips of vertical prisms or lenses with many vertical strips per
| micro-lens so that you get depth from the horizontal but not
| vertical perspective (tilting the display up and down won't
| change the image, but panning left and right will)
| scrumbledober wrote:
| Is this the technology being used on Disneyland's smugglers run
| ride? I remember moving my head around and the 3d perspective
| following my viewpoint, but my Google Fu at the time could only
| find articles about the real-time rendering used on the screens.
| Vysero wrote:
| Send it to me, let me try it out. If I break it I will buy it and
| if I like it I will buy it, but your crappy commercial isn't a
| sell.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2020-05-26 23:00 UTC)